Forums » Suggestions
Critical hit discusion
I've been thinking about new content that could be added using the existing artwork and which requires a minimal ammount of new interfaces to be constructed. On area which I've thought about recently is 'critical hits'. This topic has come up in the past, and some people have discussed it briefly, but I thought I'd open up discussion on it again.
First, I'll propose a sample system. It's not intended to be perfect, but it is intended to address certain issues like randomness and disabling that are the potential result of a critical hit system.
Feel free to be critical. Feel free to propose alternative solutions.
Sample 'Rules' for a Critical Hit System
----------------------------------------
A) A ship cannot normally recieve a critical hit from damage, unless the damage it recieves lowers a portion of its hull to condition Yellow or Worse. Even if damage to one section is yellow or worse, damage to another section normally cannot result in a critical unless that section is also reduced to yellow or worse.
Certain specialized weapons maybe able to cause criticals regardless of the current hull condition, for example we could introduce EMP weapons which would be good at 'crippling' ships without destroying them.
B) Each critical hit effects a different component. Consult the one of the following tables depending on the direction of the damage:
Roll(3d6).Forward.......Starboard/Port.....Aft
----------------------------------------------
3.........Life Support..Life Support.......Life Support
4.........Life Support..Avionics...........Avionics
5.........Avionics......Sensors............Sensors
6.........Sensors.......Electronics........Electronics
7.........Electronics...Electronics........Electronics
8.........Electronics...Electronics........Electronics
9.........Electronics...Weapon.............Electronics
10........Weapon........Weapon.............Weapon
11........Weapon........Cargo..............Weapon
12........Cargo.........Weapon.............Cargo
13........Weapon........Weapon.............Battery
14........Weapon........Battery............Generator
15........Battery.......Generator..........Thruster
16........Generator.....Avionics...........Thruster
17........Turbine.......Turbine............Turbine
18........Thruster......Thruster...........Turbine
NOTE: If equipment has not been designed a durability rating, it is possible to move this step until after the determination of whether a critical has occurred.
NOTE: Until Electronics slots are introduced, you can treat electronics as weapon hits.
B) The chance of a critical hit P is equal to the percent of damage represented by the hit out of the total maximum for the ship. For example, if a ship has a maximum of 10000 hull points, and recieves a 600 point hit, then the chance of a critical hit resulting is 6%.
The chance of a critical hit doubles if the portion of the hull is reduced to Red or less.
The chance of a critical hit doubles if the damaging weapon is an EMP weapon.
The chance of a critical hit may be modified up or down depending on the durability rating of the component.
D) If a critical hit occurs, the base severity of the critical hit is determined by rolling a d100, adding 2, and adding P-X where X is the random number generated to determine if a critical hit occurred. For example, if the chance of a critical hit was 6% and a 1 was generated indicating a critical hit, and a 45 was generated indicating a
E) If the critical hit has occurred to a location that is currently damaged from a previous critical hit, or if the resulting base severity of the hit is greater than 100 then the component is said to be 'smoked'. The damage is so severe that it cannot be repaired until the ship has docked.
F) Otherwise, multiply the base severity by the modifier given by the table below:
Percent of Total Hull Remaining Modifier
------------------------- --------
>50% 1
10%-50% 2
<10% 3
The resulting number (3-300) is the time in seconds required to repair the critical hit.
G) The time requird to repair the critical hit can be reduced by player skill and certain types of carried equipment.
H) The effect of an unrepaired critical hit is as follows:
Life Support: The life support system fails, resulting in the pilot being exposed to temperature extremes, undampered g forces, electrical discharges, lack of cabin pressure, or reduced air quality. The resulting pain reduces the pilots ability to focus on the environment. The game screen fades in and out, with the effects becoming more severe the longer that the critical hit goes unrepaired. If life support is smoked, the ship is destroyed after 301 seconds have passed unless the ship docks before that time.
Avionics: The ships controls have been damaged, resulting in reduced ability to control the ship. The controls behave somewhat erraticly and the ship unpredictably veers in its course.
Sensors: The ships radar and other long range sensors have been damaged. The radar viewscreen goes dead and a target lock cannot be achieved until the damage is repaired.
Electronics: One of the ship's electronic slots has been damaged and the electronic equipped therein will not function until repaired.
Weapon: One of the ship's weapon slots has been damaged and the weapon therein will not function until repaired.
Cargo: One of the ship's cargo slots is damaged. If this slot contains cargo, the cargo is destroyed, and the maximum cargo is reduced until the damage is repaired. If this slot contains a gizmo, the gizmo is nonfunctional until repaired.
Battery: The ship's energy storage is damaged. The maximum storage capacity is halved until the damage is repaired.
Generator: The ship's ability to generate energy is degraded. The ammount of energy generated per second is halved.
Turbine: Your ships drive is damaged. The ammount of thrust produced by your engine is halved.
Thruster: Your ships turbo thruster is damaged. The ammount of extra thrust produced by your turbo thruster is halved.
Interface
---------
We already have an icon that supports showing damage to specific parts of the ship. Ideally, this icon would be expanded to have simple sub-icons like weapon silouettes or engine silouettes which would not generally be displayed, but would flash red in an appropriate section of the ship when a critical hit had occured. However, though cool and attention getting, this is not strictly speaking necessary.
More necessary would probably be a means of having a flashing yellow 'warning light' appear on the equipment tab of the HUD arround or next to the damaged system. This would require minimal new art creation. A new damage control tab should appear (it can be toggled closed if its in the way) displaying the system which is damaged and either a clock showing how long it will take to repair the system (if we want to be precise and mental), or an estimated 'damage level' reflecting roughly how badly damaged the system is (if we want to be more emmersive and emotional). This need only contain text for now, and so should be easy to create.
Provided that they have functioning sensors, players should also be alerted when they inflict a critical hit. This gives the player a nice, 'Yahoooooo!!!' moment.
First, I'll propose a sample system. It's not intended to be perfect, but it is intended to address certain issues like randomness and disabling that are the potential result of a critical hit system.
Feel free to be critical. Feel free to propose alternative solutions.
Sample 'Rules' for a Critical Hit System
----------------------------------------
A) A ship cannot normally recieve a critical hit from damage, unless the damage it recieves lowers a portion of its hull to condition Yellow or Worse. Even if damage to one section is yellow or worse, damage to another section normally cannot result in a critical unless that section is also reduced to yellow or worse.
Certain specialized weapons maybe able to cause criticals regardless of the current hull condition, for example we could introduce EMP weapons which would be good at 'crippling' ships without destroying them.
B) Each critical hit effects a different component. Consult the one of the following tables depending on the direction of the damage:
Roll(3d6).Forward.......Starboard/Port.....Aft
----------------------------------------------
3.........Life Support..Life Support.......Life Support
4.........Life Support..Avionics...........Avionics
5.........Avionics......Sensors............Sensors
6.........Sensors.......Electronics........Electronics
7.........Electronics...Electronics........Electronics
8.........Electronics...Electronics........Electronics
9.........Electronics...Weapon.............Electronics
10........Weapon........Weapon.............Weapon
11........Weapon........Cargo..............Weapon
12........Cargo.........Weapon.............Cargo
13........Weapon........Weapon.............Battery
14........Weapon........Battery............Generator
15........Battery.......Generator..........Thruster
16........Generator.....Avionics...........Thruster
17........Turbine.......Turbine............Turbine
18........Thruster......Thruster...........Turbine
NOTE: If equipment has not been designed a durability rating, it is possible to move this step until after the determination of whether a critical has occurred.
NOTE: Until Electronics slots are introduced, you can treat electronics as weapon hits.
B) The chance of a critical hit P is equal to the percent of damage represented by the hit out of the total maximum for the ship. For example, if a ship has a maximum of 10000 hull points, and recieves a 600 point hit, then the chance of a critical hit resulting is 6%.
The chance of a critical hit doubles if the portion of the hull is reduced to Red or less.
The chance of a critical hit doubles if the damaging weapon is an EMP weapon.
The chance of a critical hit may be modified up or down depending on the durability rating of the component.
D) If a critical hit occurs, the base severity of the critical hit is determined by rolling a d100, adding 2, and adding P-X where X is the random number generated to determine if a critical hit occurred. For example, if the chance of a critical hit was 6% and a 1 was generated indicating a critical hit, and a 45 was generated indicating a
E) If the critical hit has occurred to a location that is currently damaged from a previous critical hit, or if the resulting base severity of the hit is greater than 100 then the component is said to be 'smoked'. The damage is so severe that it cannot be repaired until the ship has docked.
F) Otherwise, multiply the base severity by the modifier given by the table below:
Percent of Total Hull Remaining Modifier
------------------------- --------
>50% 1
10%-50% 2
<10% 3
The resulting number (3-300) is the time in seconds required to repair the critical hit.
G) The time requird to repair the critical hit can be reduced by player skill and certain types of carried equipment.
H) The effect of an unrepaired critical hit is as follows:
Life Support: The life support system fails, resulting in the pilot being exposed to temperature extremes, undampered g forces, electrical discharges, lack of cabin pressure, or reduced air quality. The resulting pain reduces the pilots ability to focus on the environment. The game screen fades in and out, with the effects becoming more severe the longer that the critical hit goes unrepaired. If life support is smoked, the ship is destroyed after 301 seconds have passed unless the ship docks before that time.
Avionics: The ships controls have been damaged, resulting in reduced ability to control the ship. The controls behave somewhat erraticly and the ship unpredictably veers in its course.
Sensors: The ships radar and other long range sensors have been damaged. The radar viewscreen goes dead and a target lock cannot be achieved until the damage is repaired.
Electronics: One of the ship's electronic slots has been damaged and the electronic equipped therein will not function until repaired.
Weapon: One of the ship's weapon slots has been damaged and the weapon therein will not function until repaired.
Cargo: One of the ship's cargo slots is damaged. If this slot contains cargo, the cargo is destroyed, and the maximum cargo is reduced until the damage is repaired. If this slot contains a gizmo, the gizmo is nonfunctional until repaired.
Battery: The ship's energy storage is damaged. The maximum storage capacity is halved until the damage is repaired.
Generator: The ship's ability to generate energy is degraded. The ammount of energy generated per second is halved.
Turbine: Your ships drive is damaged. The ammount of thrust produced by your engine is halved.
Thruster: Your ships turbo thruster is damaged. The ammount of extra thrust produced by your turbo thruster is halved.
Interface
---------
We already have an icon that supports showing damage to specific parts of the ship. Ideally, this icon would be expanded to have simple sub-icons like weapon silouettes or engine silouettes which would not generally be displayed, but would flash red in an appropriate section of the ship when a critical hit had occured. However, though cool and attention getting, this is not strictly speaking necessary.
More necessary would probably be a means of having a flashing yellow 'warning light' appear on the equipment tab of the HUD arround or next to the damaged system. This would require minimal new art creation. A new damage control tab should appear (it can be toggled closed if its in the way) displaying the system which is damaged and either a clock showing how long it will take to repair the system (if we want to be precise and mental), or an estimated 'damage level' reflecting roughly how badly damaged the system is (if we want to be more emmersive and emotional). This need only contain text for now, and so should be easy to create.
Provided that they have functioning sensors, players should also be alerted when they inflict a critical hit. This gives the player a nice, 'Yahoooooo!!!' moment.
So the question is, why do a critical hit system in the first place?
CON's
-----
1) It's random. It reduces the degree to which skill is the most important factor in determining the outcome of combat by some degree. I've tried to address this by not allowing critical hits to occur unless you've already been beaten up pretty bad, and by not making critical hits too common and necessarily too serious. We might have to play around with the numbers for both cases to get something that balances right.
2) It limits a player's ability to play the game. In a game, since death is not permanent, being out of the fight with an 'injury' can be alot less fun than being killed and being given a restart. You have to be careful in introducing waiting periods during which a player can't fully play the game. I've tried to design critical hits which never fully take a player out of the game, and which doesn't usually last long enough to become really tedious.
3) It discourages combat. Any time you add critical hits, it makes combat that much more risky. You never know exactly what will happen.
There may be some other con's I haven't thought of.
PRO's
-----
1) It's emmersive. Games which have less abstract injuries tend to have more 'cinimatic' combat. Hit points are about as abstract of an injury system as possible. You are either fully functioning or dead. You aren't actually hit anywhere. With a critical hit system, the player 'sees' the hit and imagines what happened. It wasn't just a hit. It was a hit in the engine, or the wing, or the cockpit, or whatever. And those sparks and smoke flying out of the ship. That isn't just a graphic. Things are really getting damaged. The combat is really getting more and more desparate. Critical hits involve the player in what is going on.
2) It's exciting. This is the converse of #3 above. Because combat is riskier, its also tenser and more exciting. Successfully inflicting a critical hit gives a player a rush of adrenalyn. It can turn around a fight which was going badly. Recieving a critical hit also gives a player a rush. Like being down in a powerplay in hockey, tt forces the player to change his tactics. He can go from winning to trying to stay alive in a few moments, and then back to full power just a few moments latter. This is the reason that even games with abstract injury systems like 3rd Ed. D&D keep critical hits around.
3) It's expected. Players are used to having critical hits in a game system, and they will typically be comfortable with the idea. If you don't have it, lots more people will whine that you should have it, than people will whine if you do have it. It's much easier to explain why you do have content than why you don't.
4) It provides a jumping off point for lots and lots of new content. I've said before that one of the main reasons you put restrictions on a players freedom of action is in order to be able to lift those restrictions latter. By having a critical hit system, you create the possiblity for lots of content which modifies it. Maybe you are the type that hates taking critical hits. Well then, spend a little extra money for the durable high quality equipment with a reduced chance of taking criticals. Maybe create a faction known for its durable critical hit resistant weapons components. Maybe create an new experimental engine that provides a marginal ammount of extra thrust, but is much more likely to stop working at the slightest hit. Or if you hate critical hits, then progress on that skill tree that reduces thier severity. Or if you like inflicting critical hits, pay for that weapon with the slightly increased chance of inflicting them. Or if you want to cripple your opponents, buy those EMP weapons that let you wipe out your opponent with out destroying him. "I've proved I'm the superior pilot, now surrender or die!" With EMP weapons in play, why we can create gizmos that reduce the effectiveness of EMP weapons. "I've got hardened electronics, your guns are no match for my tech, you pirate scum." And so on and so forth.
CON's
-----
1) It's random. It reduces the degree to which skill is the most important factor in determining the outcome of combat by some degree. I've tried to address this by not allowing critical hits to occur unless you've already been beaten up pretty bad, and by not making critical hits too common and necessarily too serious. We might have to play around with the numbers for both cases to get something that balances right.
2) It limits a player's ability to play the game. In a game, since death is not permanent, being out of the fight with an 'injury' can be alot less fun than being killed and being given a restart. You have to be careful in introducing waiting periods during which a player can't fully play the game. I've tried to design critical hits which never fully take a player out of the game, and which doesn't usually last long enough to become really tedious.
3) It discourages combat. Any time you add critical hits, it makes combat that much more risky. You never know exactly what will happen.
There may be some other con's I haven't thought of.
PRO's
-----
1) It's emmersive. Games which have less abstract injuries tend to have more 'cinimatic' combat. Hit points are about as abstract of an injury system as possible. You are either fully functioning or dead. You aren't actually hit anywhere. With a critical hit system, the player 'sees' the hit and imagines what happened. It wasn't just a hit. It was a hit in the engine, or the wing, or the cockpit, or whatever. And those sparks and smoke flying out of the ship. That isn't just a graphic. Things are really getting damaged. The combat is really getting more and more desparate. Critical hits involve the player in what is going on.
2) It's exciting. This is the converse of #3 above. Because combat is riskier, its also tenser and more exciting. Successfully inflicting a critical hit gives a player a rush of adrenalyn. It can turn around a fight which was going badly. Recieving a critical hit also gives a player a rush. Like being down in a powerplay in hockey, tt forces the player to change his tactics. He can go from winning to trying to stay alive in a few moments, and then back to full power just a few moments latter. This is the reason that even games with abstract injury systems like 3rd Ed. D&D keep critical hits around.
3) It's expected. Players are used to having critical hits in a game system, and they will typically be comfortable with the idea. If you don't have it, lots more people will whine that you should have it, than people will whine if you do have it. It's much easier to explain why you do have content than why you don't.
4) It provides a jumping off point for lots and lots of new content. I've said before that one of the main reasons you put restrictions on a players freedom of action is in order to be able to lift those restrictions latter. By having a critical hit system, you create the possiblity for lots of content which modifies it. Maybe you are the type that hates taking critical hits. Well then, spend a little extra money for the durable high quality equipment with a reduced chance of taking criticals. Maybe create a faction known for its durable critical hit resistant weapons components. Maybe create an new experimental engine that provides a marginal ammount of extra thrust, but is much more likely to stop working at the slightest hit. Or if you hate critical hits, then progress on that skill tree that reduces thier severity. Or if you like inflicting critical hits, pay for that weapon with the slightly increased chance of inflicting them. Or if you want to cripple your opponents, buy those EMP weapons that let you wipe out your opponent with out destroying him. "I've proved I'm the superior pilot, now surrender or die!" With EMP weapons in play, why we can create gizmos that reduce the effectiveness of EMP weapons. "I've got hardened electronics, your guns are no match for my tech, you pirate scum." And so on and so forth.
I really don't like the idea of any kind of random hits in combat.
What sets Vendetta apart from most RPGs is the skill it takes to fight, and introducing this kind of "dice rolling" system would be a step in the wrong direction.
I would very much like to see things like weapons, or engines being disabled, but I'd like to see it without random events. Losing a fight because some random number popped up would really aggravate me.
The best way to do this sort of thing would be to actually use the different damage zones (that seem to be present already) to effect different systems.
Obviously the game recognizes at least four different areas where the ship takes damage (I think it may actually be six), tying different systems in to each zone based on the ship design would be preferable to me.
So an example... (cause we love them so)
The Vulture:
front - life support
left - left gun
right - right gun
back - engine
I would also like to see the removal of the damage percentage we have now, and in order to kill a ship you have to work through ALL the armor on one of the zones.
This means that if it takes ten shots to get through a Vulture's armor, then you would need to fire at least eleven shots that hit the same damage zone to destroy the ship.
-Cam-
What sets Vendetta apart from most RPGs is the skill it takes to fight, and introducing this kind of "dice rolling" system would be a step in the wrong direction.
I would very much like to see things like weapons, or engines being disabled, but I'd like to see it without random events. Losing a fight because some random number popped up would really aggravate me.
The best way to do this sort of thing would be to actually use the different damage zones (that seem to be present already) to effect different systems.
Obviously the game recognizes at least four different areas where the ship takes damage (I think it may actually be six), tying different systems in to each zone based on the ship design would be preferable to me.
So an example... (cause we love them so)
The Vulture:
front - life support
left - left gun
right - right gun
back - engine
I would also like to see the removal of the damage percentage we have now, and in order to kill a ship you have to work through ALL the armor on one of the zones.
This means that if it takes ten shots to get through a Vulture's armor, then you would need to fire at least eleven shots that hit the same damage zone to destroy the ship.
-Cam-
Yeah, I agree with Cam, it would be neat if you could do the old Wing Commander takes hits on the left now, not the right - or take a face full of tach 3s, and be able to turn and live that bit longer. I always thought this was the general idea behind the current hitzones, but just never implimented? Would make for some interesting duels....
Cam:
"I would very much like to see things like weapons, or engines being disabled, but I'd like to see it without random events. Losing a fight because some random number popped up would really aggravate me."
I understand. Like I said, the randomness is one of the major drawbacks. On the other hand, a strictly unrandom system seems very one dimensional. How would this work? You suggest that taking a critical implies losing a fight. If you are gauranteed to take a critical after taking 85% damage, and if the effect of taking criticals is as gross as you suggest then aren't you just suggesting something not that different from giving all the ships 85% of the current hulls?
I note that under your system, the effects of the 'mandatory' critical are far worse than my random criticals. Critical hits to life support and engines are actually extremely rare under my system. I consider these the most gross sort of effects, and the most likely to result in a game loss so I make them unusual. Most of my critical hits would just result in the loss of one weapon for a minute or so. Alot of them would just result in reduced maximum cargo. You're system would have more people losing to criticals than mine!
And you will note that my system does take into account facing to a fairly large degree. Engine hits are more common from the aft. Life support hits are more common from the front. So my system does tie different systems to each zone of the ship.
Plus, even though your system is less random than mine, its not completely unrandom. There is a hidden degree of 'randomness' you aren't considering. Two ships are fighting. The winner is the one who does X damage to the other first. Let's suppose that a critical hit occurs at some percentage of X, lets call it .5X to really make the point clear. Without critical hits, if we simulated this combat between two equal skilled opponents, in about half of the victories the ship which ultimately won had taken .5X damage first but came back to win by 'randomly' doing more damage in the second half of the fight. With critical hits handled as mandatory, fewer of those come from behind wins would occur. In essense, your system rewards people who win the first portion of the fight, and the sooner that critical hits happen, the shorter and more random that first portion becomes. This is the 'first strike' effect. The larger or damage values are as a portion of the ship's hit points, the more random combats become. Skill is still important, but you will still lose more combats to minor (unavoidable) mistakes and lucky shots than you would otherwise.
On the other hand, if we increase the length of this portion of the fight, we greatly reduce the relavance of critical hits. If critical hits only occur after you've taken 99% damage, whats the point?
Its true that you can address some of these questions with your second idea, but I have problems with that idea as well.
"I would also like to see the removal of the damage percentage we have now, and in order to kill a ship you have to work through ALL the armor on one of the zones. This means that if it takes ten shots to get through a Vulture's armor, then you would need to fire at least eleven shots that hit the same damage zone to destroy the ship."
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Aerotech and Star Fleet Battles. The mechanic you talk about can be used to really good effect. But its primary value is its effect on tactics in a game in which weapons cycle relatively slowly compared to the rate of movement, and in which weapons have relatively broad firing arcs. Also note that in the games that feature the mechanic you suggest, that you don't have true physics. In a game in which weapons are cycling multiple times per second and in which weapons are basically mounted centerline, I don't foresee it having alot of tactical value. If you add to that that in Vendetta people don't have to be travelling in the direction they are facing, I don't see how this could be all that interesting.
I can only foresee two major consequences of dividing damage up into different sectors. First, that players who are losing a fight will have a much easier time fleeing. Second, that players who have been ambushed will have a much easier time standing and fighting.
I don't see either consequence as worth it.
What I certainly don't foresee as a consequence of dividing damage up into different sectors is more interesting duels. The fact of the matter is that almost all fights in Vendetta occur between people who are facing each and who remain facing each other through most of the fight because you can't really attack someone unless you face them. Certainly direct fire weapon users get absolutely no advantage out of this. It not sure it would change the way two skilled Nuetron Blaster pilots would fight at all. You can't fight back by turning away. You just make what happens while you turn away less relevant. It's not like your foe is going to be any less ready to shoot you when you turn back around to try to shoot him! Rockets a few other slow cycling weapons might get a slight advantage here, but I'm pretty darn sure your intention in suggesting this improvement was not to effect weapon balance.
"I would very much like to see things like weapons, or engines being disabled, but I'd like to see it without random events. Losing a fight because some random number popped up would really aggravate me."
I understand. Like I said, the randomness is one of the major drawbacks. On the other hand, a strictly unrandom system seems very one dimensional. How would this work? You suggest that taking a critical implies losing a fight. If you are gauranteed to take a critical after taking 85% damage, and if the effect of taking criticals is as gross as you suggest then aren't you just suggesting something not that different from giving all the ships 85% of the current hulls?
I note that under your system, the effects of the 'mandatory' critical are far worse than my random criticals. Critical hits to life support and engines are actually extremely rare under my system. I consider these the most gross sort of effects, and the most likely to result in a game loss so I make them unusual. Most of my critical hits would just result in the loss of one weapon for a minute or so. Alot of them would just result in reduced maximum cargo. You're system would have more people losing to criticals than mine!
And you will note that my system does take into account facing to a fairly large degree. Engine hits are more common from the aft. Life support hits are more common from the front. So my system does tie different systems to each zone of the ship.
Plus, even though your system is less random than mine, its not completely unrandom. There is a hidden degree of 'randomness' you aren't considering. Two ships are fighting. The winner is the one who does X damage to the other first. Let's suppose that a critical hit occurs at some percentage of X, lets call it .5X to really make the point clear. Without critical hits, if we simulated this combat between two equal skilled opponents, in about half of the victories the ship which ultimately won had taken .5X damage first but came back to win by 'randomly' doing more damage in the second half of the fight. With critical hits handled as mandatory, fewer of those come from behind wins would occur. In essense, your system rewards people who win the first portion of the fight, and the sooner that critical hits happen, the shorter and more random that first portion becomes. This is the 'first strike' effect. The larger or damage values are as a portion of the ship's hit points, the more random combats become. Skill is still important, but you will still lose more combats to minor (unavoidable) mistakes and lucky shots than you would otherwise.
On the other hand, if we increase the length of this portion of the fight, we greatly reduce the relavance of critical hits. If critical hits only occur after you've taken 99% damage, whats the point?
Its true that you can address some of these questions with your second idea, but I have problems with that idea as well.
"I would also like to see the removal of the damage percentage we have now, and in order to kill a ship you have to work through ALL the armor on one of the zones. This means that if it takes ten shots to get through a Vulture's armor, then you would need to fire at least eleven shots that hit the same damage zone to destroy the ship."
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Aerotech and Star Fleet Battles. The mechanic you talk about can be used to really good effect. But its primary value is its effect on tactics in a game in which weapons cycle relatively slowly compared to the rate of movement, and in which weapons have relatively broad firing arcs. Also note that in the games that feature the mechanic you suggest, that you don't have true physics. In a game in which weapons are cycling multiple times per second and in which weapons are basically mounted centerline, I don't foresee it having alot of tactical value. If you add to that that in Vendetta people don't have to be travelling in the direction they are facing, I don't see how this could be all that interesting.
I can only foresee two major consequences of dividing damage up into different sectors. First, that players who are losing a fight will have a much easier time fleeing. Second, that players who have been ambushed will have a much easier time standing and fighting.
I don't see either consequence as worth it.
What I certainly don't foresee as a consequence of dividing damage up into different sectors is more interesting duels. The fact of the matter is that almost all fights in Vendetta occur between people who are facing each and who remain facing each other through most of the fight because you can't really attack someone unless you face them. Certainly direct fire weapon users get absolutely no advantage out of this. It not sure it would change the way two skilled Nuetron Blaster pilots would fight at all. You can't fight back by turning away. You just make what happens while you turn away less relevant. It's not like your foe is going to be any less ready to shoot you when you turn back around to try to shoot him! Rockets a few other slow cycling weapons might get a slight advantage here, but I'm pretty darn sure your intention in suggesting this improvement was not to effect weapon balance.
Dunno, while cirling in my solo tach hog, or flying evasive as im 2%, I get shot in the ass dueling lots? and to just sit there spinning round and round is nooo fun, heh.
There's a lot there and I want to respond to it in more detail, but for now let me just say I'm for it. I also sat down and brainstormed a fairly comprehensive list of things that could possibly go wrong a while back:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/3242#40187
With all the new content this list could undoubtedly be added to, but it's just some ideas.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/3242#40187
With all the new content this list could undoubtedly be added to, but it's just some ideas.
mmm.... I like the mandatory hitzone-based criticals, but I don't think the current zones are small enough to support them.. instead of a broad weapon-zone covering a Vulture's entire wing, I'm thinking more along the lines of one micro-zone centered just around the gun-barrel...
then again, however, I don't think we can reakky expect that kind of aiming acuity on the fighters we have now... I'm in favor of shelving criticals until we start seeing corvettes or capital ships
then again, however, I don't think we can reakky expect that kind of aiming acuity on the fighters we have now... I'm in favor of shelving criticals until we start seeing corvettes or capital ships
"I like the mandatory hitzone-based criticals, but I don't think the current zones are small enough to support them.. instead of a broad weapon-zone covering a Vulture's entire wing, I'm thinking more along the lines of one micro-zone centered just around the gun-barrel..."
In practice, this would be no different at all than my system. If you created micro zones around the ship corressponding to each item, you'd be faced with several problems. First, not every ship would have the same layout. As an obvious example, each ships weapons would be placed in a different location. How would we determine whether a weapon was hit without an overly complex map for every single ship? Would such a map have so fine of resolution that the computer could quickly tell a regular wing hit from a gun hit from a cargo hit (for example)? Moreover, the effects would be random anyway, because as you mention, noone could possibly aim so carefully as to distinguish between the two. More likely, the map would have several overlapping regions and we'd have to choose between choices randomly anyway. For example, in the real world, the interior of ships has a 3D structure which means that a shot pentrating some point on the surface can damage some hidden structure beneath (a power conduit feeding a weapon for example, or an autoloader feeding a ammo into a launcher). Taking into account all these factors would result in a system that would produce effects superficially indistinguishable from the sort of randomness I outline, but would be alot more hassle to build.
"then again, however, I don't think we can reakky expect that kind of aiming acuity on the fighters we have now... I'm in favor of shelving criticals until we start seeing corvettes or capital ships"
Capital ships will need a more complex system to reflect the redundancies that they have in the design. You don't want a single hit effecting a capital ship to nearly the same degree that it would effect a fighter. Phaserlight's idea of a graduated system of effects is pretty essential here.
In practice, this would be no different at all than my system. If you created micro zones around the ship corressponding to each item, you'd be faced with several problems. First, not every ship would have the same layout. As an obvious example, each ships weapons would be placed in a different location. How would we determine whether a weapon was hit without an overly complex map for every single ship? Would such a map have so fine of resolution that the computer could quickly tell a regular wing hit from a gun hit from a cargo hit (for example)? Moreover, the effects would be random anyway, because as you mention, noone could possibly aim so carefully as to distinguish between the two. More likely, the map would have several overlapping regions and we'd have to choose between choices randomly anyway. For example, in the real world, the interior of ships has a 3D structure which means that a shot pentrating some point on the surface can damage some hidden structure beneath (a power conduit feeding a weapon for example, or an autoloader feeding a ammo into a launcher). Taking into account all these factors would result in a system that would produce effects superficially indistinguishable from the sort of randomness I outline, but would be alot more hassle to build.
"then again, however, I don't think we can reakky expect that kind of aiming acuity on the fighters we have now... I'm in favor of shelving criticals until we start seeing corvettes or capital ships"
Capital ships will need a more complex system to reflect the redundancies that they have in the design. You don't want a single hit effecting a capital ship to nearly the same degree that it would effect a fighter. Phaserlight's idea of a graduated system of effects is pretty essential here.
hmmm...
First off, my example of engines, and life support being directly linked to the front and rear damage zones was just that, an example.
Also... I did not mean to imply that my critical engine or life support symptoms would be the same as the ones you outlined.
I do see what you're saying about there being a mandatory critical failure at a certain percentage, but I didn't think of it as a sudden failure, more of a gradual drop in performance for that system as it's damaged further.
So even damaging your opponents wing by 10% would result in some lack of function for whichever device, or devices, are located in that zone.
This would mean the more hits you take the harder it is for you to fight, but for evenly skilled pilots, it should still be a relatively even battle.
If one pilot's at 60% and the other at 50% they would both be suffering from damaged systems, and both still be in the fight.
This would however put less skilled pilots at a disadvantage, because if they get knocked down to 50% while their opponent is still at 90-100% they will be significantly more damaged, and therefore more vulnerable.
This in my eyes makes perfect sense. Why would a ship at 50% be comparable to a ship at 100% ?
"I'm pretty darn sure your intention in suggesting this improvement was not to effect weapon balance."
As with any major gameplay suggestions, balance is always going to be an issue. It's an issue at present without the discussed systems, of course adding them would effect it.
I assumed that a proper balancing of any new elements was implied.
First off, my example of engines, and life support being directly linked to the front and rear damage zones was just that, an example.
Also... I did not mean to imply that my critical engine or life support symptoms would be the same as the ones you outlined.
I do see what you're saying about there being a mandatory critical failure at a certain percentage, but I didn't think of it as a sudden failure, more of a gradual drop in performance for that system as it's damaged further.
So even damaging your opponents wing by 10% would result in some lack of function for whichever device, or devices, are located in that zone.
This would mean the more hits you take the harder it is for you to fight, but for evenly skilled pilots, it should still be a relatively even battle.
If one pilot's at 60% and the other at 50% they would both be suffering from damaged systems, and both still be in the fight.
This would however put less skilled pilots at a disadvantage, because if they get knocked down to 50% while their opponent is still at 90-100% they will be significantly more damaged, and therefore more vulnerable.
This in my eyes makes perfect sense. Why would a ship at 50% be comparable to a ship at 100% ?
"I'm pretty darn sure your intention in suggesting this improvement was not to effect weapon balance."
As with any major gameplay suggestions, balance is always going to be an issue. It's an issue at present without the discussed systems, of course adding them would effect it.
I assumed that a proper balancing of any new elements was implied.